One of my favorite movies is Little Children, in which several families carry on illicit affairs, gossip, and otherwise make poor decisions in the wake of a child molester moving back into the neighborhood after being released from prison. I was reminded of this movie when a group of upset mothers landed on the nightly news because a child molester was moving into their cul-de-sac after a 12-year prison sentence. They were furious that “someone like that” would be moving into a suburban neighborhood, even if he was going to be living with his sister, listed in the state’s sex-offender registry, and was required to avoid contact with children, and wear an electronic monitoring bracelet. These mothers explained that living in their neighborhood was based off of “deserving it”, and one did not “deserve” to live in their neighborhood if they were “immoral”. They also complained that where this man should really be is at a halfway house, or some similar facility.

Here are my thoughts:

1. I really strongly dislike child molesters. This man’s crime, assaulting an 8-year-old is extremely heinous (and that’s putting it mildly).
2. HOWEVER, I do think that it is safer for this man to be living in a place where he will be supervised by his sister, and the electronic tether, rather than homeless and wandering from place to place. I do not have children, so perhaps I cannot fully understand how the women in this neighborhood, who have children feel about their new neighbor.
3. This man has paid for his crimes He served 12 years in prison (and knowing prison sexual assault rates, his stay was probably not all that pleasant), and will have the state monitor his whereabouts for the rest of his life. I know that many would say that he deserves to be imprisoned for the rest of his life, but unfortunately, my state does not have enough money to do that. In fact…
4. The state is dead broke. The reason why this man couldn’t be placed in a halfway house is because the state does not have room in their halfway houses, and does not have any money to build new ones. To do so, the state will need more revenue, aka taxes. And most people would sooner cut off their left foot than pay higher taxes, especially taxes that would benefit incarcerated criminals.

Several years ago, in a similar case, a local neighborhood succeeded in driving an ex-con out of the state. He moved around until he wound up in New Mexico. Because it’s better to make a child molester another cash-strapped state’s problem? Not to mention that one only needs to have a sufficient down payment, and qualify for a mortgage to purchase a house, not have any sort of claims on morality. I am sure that having a neighbor with such a terrible criminal history cannot be easy, but I am frustrated by how these families cannot see the forest for the trees. They may see their new neighbor as a sacrifice of their peace of mind, and housing value, but it would take a financial sacrifice to have him placed in a halfway house, and if he was homeless, the entire city’s safety would be sacrificed.